I want to add, just so that I'm clear. I'm not in favor of banning guns. I'm just less in favor of letting everyone carry a gun on them all the time. If I had to choose one, it would be the former. But that is only in the event of an either or type of situation.

"As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it is an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children. And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."

Read between the lines. He's going to lead the charge for gun control in the coming weeks and months. He's going to pressure the new Congress to take action.

Also, the U.N. is going to revisit the small arms treaty in March. This is a different way he can go after guns. He only needs the Senate to ratify it. We all know they will pass any kind of anti gun legislation they can get their hands on.

Read between the lines. He's going to lead the charge for gun control in the coming weeks and months. He's going to pressure the new Congress to take action.

Also, the U.N. is going to revisit the small arms treaty in March. This is a different way he can go after guns. He only needs the Senate to ratify it. We all know they will pass any kind of anti gun legislation they can get their hands on.

BTW it appears that this shooting today was done by a 20year old. Which means he already was legally prohibited from owning handguns(in both NJ and CT you'd need a permit to own and they won't give them to under 21). Another case where a control was in place and yet still had no impact.

__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t*rd by the clean end"

BTW it appears that this shooting today was done by a 20year old. Which means he already was legally prohibited from owning handguns(in both NJ and CT you'd need a permit to own and they won't give them to under 21). Another case where a control was in place and yet still had no impact.

I'm saying that if someone who is normally prone to rage and fits of anger and displaying those acts in a violent fashion, adding a gun to that situation is only going make it worse.

If a person is that prone to violence, then there isn't much to be done. They would be dangerous in any number of situations. Should we deny that person the right to drive? Buy a knife? Should we prevent them from picking up a frying pan? How about prevent them from buying fertilizer to make a bomb?

There's thousands of ways for human violence to present itself. The majority of which are easily accessible. Let's address why that person might be prone to violence instead of trying to tackle the unrealistic problem of removing anything that could be used as a weapon by said crazy person.

If a person is that prone to violence, then there isn't much to be done. They would be dangerous in any number of situations. Should we deny that person the right to drive? Buy a knife? Should we prevent them from picking up a frying pan? How about prevent them from buying fertilizer to make a bomb?

There's thousands of ways for human violence to present itself. The majority of which are easily accessible. Let's address why that person might be prone to violence instead of trying to tackle the unrealistic problem of removing anything that could be used as a weapon by said crazy person.

What if he took a brick and knocked the window out of a semi and drove it trough a crowd at the time the school let out? Would they be calling for trucks to be banned?